DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. This office action is in response to application number 18/982,022 filed on 12/16/2024,
claims 1-19 are presented for examination.
Priority
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119
(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2023-217129, filed on
12/22/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/16/2024 has been received and considered.
Examiner Notes
5. Examiner cites particular paragraphs (or columns and lines) in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) to the language of the claims. For purpose of Examination in the Oba reference T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5= collision determination thresholds specifically T2=second collision threshold (early collision threshold), T3=first collision threshold (standard collision threshold), T4=fourth collision threshold (intermediate delay collision threshold), and T5= third collision threshold (delay collision threshold. Also the control execution periods correspond to T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5 as well. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP §2111.01.
Claim Objections
6. Claim 1, 8, 18, and 19 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 is numbered “1” but should be numbered as “1.”.
Claim 8 reads “quickly or more greatly as compared to said said second control” but should read “quickly or more greatly as compared to said second control”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 and 19 reads “second control system is not being executed said second control” but should read “second control system is not executing said second control”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7. Claim(s) 1 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 USC §102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Kobayashi (JP 2024127070 A).
Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi discloses A vehicle control apparatus comprising: (Kobayashi Page 3, Paragraph 1: “1 is a block diagram showing an overall configuration of a vehicle system 1 including a control device 100 which is an embodiment of a vehicle control device of the present invention.”) a first control system that executes a first operation for reducing a possibility of collision between a host vehicle and an obstacle that is present in a predicted traveling area of said host vehicle; (Kobayashi Page 7, Paragraph 2: “The second control unit 130 has a function capable of executing a second control that controls the braking or steering of the host vehicle M and issues a second warning to the occupant in response to the second execution condition being established based on the recognition result of the recognition unit 110.”) (Kobayashi Page 7, Paragraph 3: “As an example, the second control will be described below as a collision mitigation brake system (CMBS). The condition for executing the collision mitigation control is that, as shown in FIG. 3, an object that may collide with the host vehicle M, such as a leading vehicle M1 traveling in the host vehicle lane L1, is detected ahead of the host vehicle M while the host vehicle M is traveling.”) and a second control system that execute a second control for automatically stopping said host vehicle when information indicating that a driver of said host vehicle has fallen into an anomaly state where said driver cannot drive said host vehicle properly is obtained, (Kobayashi Page 8, Paragraph 1: “The third control unit 150 has a function capable of executing a third control in which the vehicle M is decelerated or stopped and a third warning is issued in response to the driver's abnormality being detected by the occupant abnormality detection unit 140, i.e., the second detection condition being satisfied.”) (Kobayashi Page 8, Paragraph 1: “The third control may further include a control in which the wheels of the stopped vehicle M are fixed by the electric parking brake device 230.”) wherein, said vehicle control apparatus is configured in such a manner that a second control in-execution period first operation start condition that is necessary to be satisfied in order for said first system to start executing said first operation while said second control system is not executing said second control (Kobayashi Page 13, Paragraph 1: “For example, as shown in (a) of FIG. 8, when no abnormality is detected in the driver, the second control unit 130 executes collision mitigation control in response to the fact that the distance between the traveling host vehicle M and the preceding vehicle M1 in front of the host vehicle M becomes d1.”) and a second control execution period first operation start condition that is necessary to be satisfied in order for said first system to start executing said first operation while said second control system is executing said second control are different from each other. (Kobayashi Page 9, Paragraph 6: “Also, as shown in (b) of FIG. 5, if the execution condition for collision mitigation control is satisfied when an abnormality in the driver is detected (i.e., after the second detection condition is satisfied),”) (Kobayashi Page 13, Paragraph 1: “In contrast, as shown in (b) of FIG. 8, when an abnormality is detected in the driver, the second control unit 130 executes collision mitigation control in response to the fact that the distance between the traveling host vehicle M and the preceding vehicle M1 in front of the host vehicle M becomes d2, which is greater than d1. This makes it possible to prevent excessive execution of collision mitigation control when no abnormality is detected in the driver, while at the same time, to activate collision mitigation control earlier when an abnormality is detected in the driver, thereby improving the safety of the host vehicle M.”)
Regarding claim 18, Kobayashi discloses A vehicle control method comprising: a first step of executing a first operation for reducing a possibility of collision between a host vehicle and an obstacle that is present in a predicted traveling area of said host vehicle; (Kobayashi Page 7, Paragraph 2: “The second control unit 130 has a function capable of executing a second control that controls the braking or steering of the host vehicle M and issues a second warning to the occupant in response to the second execution condition being established based on the recognition result of the recognition unit 110.”) (Kobayashi Page 7, Paragraph 3: “As an example, the second control will be described below as a collision mitigation brake system (CMBS). The condition for executing the collision mitigation control is that, as shown in FIG. 3, an object that may collide with the host vehicle M, such as a leading vehicle M1 traveling in the host vehicle lane L1, is detected ahead of the host vehicle M while the host vehicle M is traveling.”) and a second step of executing a second control for automatically stopping said host vehicle when information indicating that a driver of said host vehicle has fallen into an anomaly state where said driver cannot drive said host vehicle properly is obtained, (Kobayashi Page 8, Paragraph 1: “The third control unit 150 has a function capable of executing a third control in which the vehicle M is decelerated or stopped and a third warning is issued in response to the driver's abnormality being detected by the occupant abnormality detection unit 140, i.e., the second detection condition being satisfied.”) (Kobayashi Page 8, Paragraph 1: “The third control may further include a control in which the wheels of the stopped vehicle M are fixed by the electric parking brake device 230.”) wherein, a second control in-execution period first operation start condition that is necessary to be satisfied in order for said first system to start executing said first operation while said second control system is not being executed said second control (Kobayashi Page 13, Paragraph 1: “For example, as shown in (a) of FIG. 8, when no abnormality is detected in the driver, the second control unit 130 executes collision mitigation control in response to the fact that the distance between the traveling host vehicle M and the preceding vehicle M1 in front of the host vehicle M becomes d1.”) and a second control execution period first operation start condition that is necessary to be satisfied in order for said first system to start executing said first operation while said second control system is being executing said second control are different from each other. (Kobayashi Page 9, Paragraph 6: “Also, as shown in (b) of FIG. 5, if the execution condition for collision mitigation control is satisfied when an abnormality in the driver is detected (i.e., after the second detection condition is satisfied),”) (Kobayashi Page 13, Paragraph 1: “In contrast, as shown in (b) of FIG. 8, when an abnormality is detected in the driver, the second control unit 130 executes collision mitigation control in response to the fact that the distance between the traveling host vehicle M and the preceding vehicle M1 in front of the host vehicle M becomes d2, which is greater than d1. This makes it possible to prevent excessive execution of collision mitigation control when no abnormality is detected in the driver, while at the same time, to activate collision mitigation control earlier when an abnormality is detected in the driver, thereby improving the safety of the host vehicle M.”)
Regarding claim 19, Kobayashi discloses A non-transitory storage medium storing a program, said program causing a computer to implement: a first step of executing a first operation for reducing a possibility of collision between a host vehicle and an obstacle that is present in a predicted traveling area of said host vehicle; (Kobayashi Page 7, Paragraph 2: “The second control unit 130 has a function capable of executing a second control that controls the braking or steering of the host vehicle M and issues a second warning to the occupant in response to the second execution condition being established based on the recognition result of the recognition unit 110.”) (Kobayashi Page 7, Paragraph 3: “As an example, the second control will be described below as a collision mitigation brake system (CMBS). The condition for executing the collision mitigation control is that, as shown in FIG. 3, an object that may collide with the host vehicle M, such as a leading vehicle M1 traveling in the host vehicle lane L1, is detected ahead of the host vehicle M while the host vehicle M is traveling.”) and a second step of executing a second control for automatically stopping said host vehicle when information indicating that a driver of said host vehicle has fallen into an anomaly state where said driver cannot drive said host vehicle properly is obtained, (Kobayashi Page 8, Paragraph 1: “The third control unit 150 has a function capable of executing a third control in which the vehicle M is decelerated or stopped and a third warning is issued in response to the driver's abnormality being detected by the occupant abnormality detection unit 140, i.e., the second detection condition being satisfied.”) (Kobayashi Page 8, Paragraph 1: “The third control may further include a control in which the wheels of the stopped vehicle M are fixed by the electric parking brake device 230.”) wherein, a second control in-execution period first operation start condition that is necessary to be satisfied in order for said first system to start executing said first operation while said second control system is not being executed said second control (Kobayashi Page 13, Paragraph 1: “For example, as shown in (a) of FIG. 8, when no abnormality is detected in the driver, the second control unit 130 executes collision mitigation control in response to the fact that the distance between the traveling host vehicle M and the preceding vehicle M1 in front of the host vehicle M becomes d1.”) and a second control execution period first operation start condition that is necessary to be satisfied in order for said first system to start executing said first operation while said second control system is being executing said second control are different from each other. (Kobayashi Page 9, Paragraph 6: “Also, as shown in (b) of FIG. 5, if the execution condition for collision mitigation control is satisfied when an abnormality in the driver is detected (i.e., after the second detection condition is satisfied),”) (Kobayashi Page 13, Paragraph 1: “In contrast, as shown in (b) of FIG. 8, when an abnormality is detected in the driver, the second control unit 130 executes collision mitigation control in response to the fact that the distance between the traveling host vehicle M and the preceding vehicle M1 in front of the host vehicle M becomes d2, which is greater than d1. This makes it possible to prevent excessive execution of collision mitigation control when no abnormality is detected in the driver, while at the same time, to activate collision mitigation control earlier when an abnormality is detected in the driver, thereby improving the safety of the host vehicle M.”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
8. Claim(s) 2-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (JP 2024127070 A) in view of Oba (JP 2025059784 A).
Regarding claim 2, Kobayashi discloses claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporate above.
Kobayashi does not disclose The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, said second control in-execution period first operation start condition is a condition that is satisfied when a collision indication value correlating with a possibility that said host vehicle collides with said obstacle reaches a first collision determination threshold; said second control execution period first operation start condition is a condition that is satisfied when said collision indication value reaches a second collision determination threshold; and said second collision determination threshold is set to a value which said collision indication value reaches before a timing at which said collision indication value reaches said first collision determination threshold.
However, Oba does teach The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, said second control in-execution period first operation start condition is a condition that is satisfied when a collision indication value correlating with a possibility that said host vehicle collides with said obstacle reaches a first collision determination threshold; (Oba Page 11, Paragraph 3: “This contact attention warning control is an example of "second driving control". Time T3 is the time when the time to contact TTC becomes about 2 seconds, for example. In other words, the second predetermined time is shorter than the first predetermined time.”) (Oba Page 11, Paragraph 4: “The slow deceleration control executed in the contact warning control is a control in the second deceleration state. In the second deceleration state, the slow deceleration control unit 142A sets a target deceleration (second target deceleration) so that a load (longitudinal G) greater than the first upper limit deceleration is applied to the driver in the traveling direction (longitudinal direction) at or below the second upper limit deceleration (about 0.2 [G]). This makes it possible to more clearly make the driver aware that the host vehicle M is approaching the other vehicle m1. In this way, deceleration control is performed while increasing the deceleration rate as necessary, which creates more time for the driver to notice the other vehicle m1, and allows the driver plenty of time to drive in a way that avoids contact with the other vehicle m1.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
230
421
media_image1.png
Greyscale
said second control execution period first operation start condition is a condition that is satisfied when said collision indication value reaches a second collision determination threshold; (Oba Page 9, Paragraph 3: “The driver abnormal stop control is, for example, a control in which, when the driving state detection unit 120 detects that the driver is in a state in which he or she cannot drive, the vehicle M is moved to a predetermined position (for example, a safe position such as a nearby road shoulder) and stopped based on the recognition result by the recognition unit 110.”) (Oba Page 10, Paragraph 4: “In the example of FIG. 3, the control unit 140 performs warning control when the time to contact TTC (contact margin value) based on the relative position and relative speed between the vehicle M and another vehicle m1 becomes less than a first predetermined value (first predetermined time) at time T2 and the driver is detected as being careless.”) (Oba Page 10, Paragraph 6: “In addition, in the attention control, the centering steering control unit 144A performs centering steering control to steer the host vehicle M toward the center of the driving lane (lane L1).”) (Oba Page 14, Paragraph 4: “Driver abnormality stop control is a control (including steering control) that is executed mainly when the driver is absent-minded or even when the driver is unable to drive.”)
PNG
media_image2.png
269
493
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and said second collision determination threshold is set to a value which said collision indication value reaches before a timing at which said collision indication value reaches said first collision determination threshold. (Oba Page 10, Paragraph 4: “In the example of FIG. 3, the control unit 140 performs warning control when the time to contact TTC (contact margin value) based on the relative position and relative speed between the vehicle M and another vehicle m1 becomes less than a first predetermined value (first predetermined time) at time T2 and the driver is detected as being careless.”) (Oba Page 11, Paragraph 3: “Time T3 is the time when the time to contact TTC becomes about 2 seconds, for example. In other words, the second predetermined time is shorter than the first predetermined time.”) (Note: Second collision threshold=T2 which is 3-4 sec and First collision threshold=T3 which is 2 sec)
PNG
media_image2.png
269
493
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
230
421
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kobayashi to include The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, said second control in-execution period first operation start condition is a condition that is satisfied when a collision indication value correlating with a possibility that said host vehicle collides with said obstacle reaches a first collision determination threshold; said second control execution period first operation start condition is a condition that is satisfied when said collision indication value reaches a second collision determination threshold; and said second collision determination threshold is set to a value which said collision indication value reaches before a timing at which said collision indication value reaches said first collision determination threshold taught by Oba. This would have been for the benefit to provide a vehicle control device that recognizes the obstacle ahead of the vehicle, the driving state of the driver, and a controller that executes driving control based on the state of the driver and the obstacle ahead. Thus, being able to determine the avoidance action based on the estimated collision of the vehicle and an object. [Oba Page 2, Paragraph 3]
Regarding claim 3, Kobayashi in view of Oba teaches claim 2, accordingly, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporate above.
Kobayashi does not teach The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 2, wherein, said collision indication value is a collision margin time that is a time length till a time point at which said host vehicle is predicted to collide with said obstacle; and an early collision determination threshold set as said second collision determination threshold is set to a value greater than a standard collision determination threshold set as said first collision determination threshold.
However, Oba does teach The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 2, wherein, said collision indication value is a collision margin time that is a time length till a time point at which said host vehicle is predicted to collide with said obstacle; (Oba Page 7, Paragraph 3: “For example, the contact possibility determination unit 130 determines whether or not there is a possibility of contact between the vehicle M and another vehicle based on a contact margin value with another vehicle (preceding vehicle) existing in front of the vehicle M based on the surrounding situation. The contact margin value is an index value indicating a margin, and is, for example, a value set based on the contact margin time TTC (Time To Collision),”) (Oba Page 7, Paragraph 3: “For example, the shorter the time to contact TTC (or the time to headway THW), the smaller the margin (in other words, the longer the time to contact, the greater the margin).”) and an early collision determination threshold set as said second collision determination threshold is set to a value greater than a standard collision determination threshold set as said first collision determination threshold. (Oba Page 10, Paragraph 4: “In the example of FIG. 3, the control unit 140 performs warning control when the time to contact TTC (contact margin value) based on the relative position and relative speed between the vehicle M and another vehicle m1 becomes less than a first predetermined value (first predetermined time) at time T2 and the driver is detected as being careless.”) (Oba Page 11, Paragraph 3: “Time T3 is the time when the time to contact TTC becomes about 2 seconds, for example. In other words, the second predetermined time is shorter than the first predetermined time.”) (Note: Second collision threshold=T2 which is 3-4 sec and First collision threshold=T3 which is 2 sec)
PNG
media_image2.png
269
493
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
230
421
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kobayashi to include The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 2, wherein, said collision indication value is a collision margin time that is a time length till a time point at which said host vehicle is predicted to collide with said obstacle; and an early collision determination threshold set as said second collision determination threshold is set to a value greater than a standard collision determination threshold set as said first collision determination threshold taught by Oba. This would have been for the benefit to provide a vehicle control device that recognizes the obstacle ahead of the vehicle, the driving state of the driver, and a controller that executes driving control based on the state of the driver and the obstacle ahead. Thus, being able to determine the avoidance action based on the estimated collision of the vehicle and an object. [Oba Page 2, Paragraph 3]
Regarding claim 4, Kobayashi discloses claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporate above.
Kobayashi does not disclose The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, said second control in-execution period first operation start condition is a condition that is satisfied when a collision indication value correlating with a possibility that said host vehicle collides with said obstacle reaches a first collision determination threshold in a case where an operation determination condition that is satisfied when said driver is operating a driving operation element of said host vehicle is not satisfied, and said second control in-execution period first operation start condition is a condition that is satisfied when said collision indication value reaches a third collision determination threshold in a case where an operation determination condition is satisfied; said second control execution period first operation start condition is a condition that is satisfied when said collision indication value reaches said first collision determination threshold regardless of whether or not said operation determination condition is satisfied; and said third collision determination threshold is set to a value which said collision indication value reaches after a timing at which said collision indication value reaches said first collision determination threshold.
However, Oba does teach The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, said second control in-execution period first operation start condition is a condition that is satisfied when a collision indication value correlating with a possibility that said host vehicle collides with said obstacle reaches a first collision determination threshold in a case where an operation determination condition that is satisfied when said driver is operating a driving operation element of said host vehicle is not satisfied, (Oba Page 11, Paragraph 4: “4 is a diagram for explaining the contents of the contact warning control. FIG. 4 shows a scene in which the contact margin time TTC becomes 2 [seconds] without driver operation from the situation shown in FIG. 3 (the state in which the host vehicle M is closer to the other vehicle m1 than when the attention calling control is executed).”)
PNG
media_image1.png
230
421
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and said second control in-execution period first operation start condition is a condition that is satisfied when said collision indication value reaches a third collision determination threshold in a case where an operation determination condition is satisfied; (Oba Page 12, Paragraph 5: “Returning to FIG. 2, at time T5 when the driver operates the steering wheel 82 (detects the driver steering trigger) and performs a steering operation in a direction to avoid the other vehicle m1, the contact avoidance steering control unit 144B performs contact avoidance steering control so as not to further deviate from the adjacent lane (lane L2) adjacent to the driving lane (lane L1) ((4) in FIG. 2). The contact avoidance steering control is an example of the "fourth driving control". The contact avoidance steering control may be performed after the automatic steering avoidance control or after the contact attention warning control.”) (Note: T5 is the third collision threshold)
PNG
media_image3.png
250
426
media_image3.png
Greyscale
said second control execution period first operation start condition is a condition that is satisfied when said collision indication value reaches said first collision determination threshold regardless of whether or not said operation determination condition is satisfied; (Oba Page 11, Paragraph 5: “Also, during the contact warning control at time T3 (during the second driving control), the HMI control unit 150 generates an image indicating that the contact warning control has been executed, an image calling attention, an image indicating the reason for the operation of the contact warning control, etc., as the second notification, and notifies the driver by displaying the generated image IM20 on the display unit 32.”) (Oba Page 11, Paragraph 4: “4 is a diagram for explaining the contents of the contact warning control. FIG. 4 shows a scene in which the contact margin time TTC becomes 2 [seconds] without driver operation from the situation shown in FIG. 3 (the state in which the host vehicle M is closer to the other vehicle m1 than when the attention calling control is executed).”) (Oba Page 15, Paragraph 1: “In addition, when override control is executed by accelerator operation or brake operation, the HMI control unit 150 may set the condition for not changing the notification level that the steering wheel 82 is being held as a condition. In this way, by detecting that override control is executed by steering operation for driving control, it is possible to accurately detect that the absentminded driving state has been eliminated (return to normal manual driving)”) (Note: Even if braking or acceleration occurs by the operator the second notification/first threshold is still reached if the steering wheel is not being held) and said third collision determination threshold is set to a value which said collision indication value reaches after a timing at which said collision indication value reaches said first collision determination threshold. (Oba Page 11, Paragraph 4: “4 is a diagram for explaining the contents of the contact warning control. FIG. 4 shows a scene in which the contact margin time TTC becomes 2 [seconds] without driver operation from the situation shown in FIG. 3 (the state in which the host vehicle M is closer to the other vehicle m1 than when the attention calling control is executed).”) (Oba Page 12, Paragraph 5: “Returning to FIG. 2, at the time T5 when the driver performs a steering operation in a direction in which the different vehicle m1 is avoided by operating the steering wheel 82 (by detecting a driver steering trigger), the contact avoidance steering controller 144B performs the contact avoidance steering control so as not to further depart from the adjacent lane (lane L2) adjacent to the traveling lane (lane L1) ((4) in FIG. 2).”) (Note: T5 is the third collision threshold) (Note: T5 happens after T3)
PNG
media_image3.png
250
426
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
269
493
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kobayashi to include The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, said second control in-execution period first operation start condition is a condition that is satisfied when a collision indication value correlating with a possibility that said host vehicle collides with said obstacle reaches a first collision determination threshold in a case where an operation determination condition that is satisfied when said driver is operating a driving operation element of said host vehicle is not satisfied, and said second control in-execution period first operation start condition is a condition that is satisfied when said collision indication value reaches a third collision determination threshold in a case where an operation determination condition is satisfied; said second control execution period first operation start condition is a condition that is satisfied when said collision indication value reaches said first collision determination threshold regardless of whether or not said operation determination condition is satisfied; and said third collision determination threshold is set to a value which said collision indication value reaches after a timing at which said collision indication value reaches said first collision determination threshold taught by Oba. This would have been for the benefit to provide a vehicle control device that recognizes the obstacle ahead of the vehicle, the driving state of the driver, and a controller that executes driving control based on the state of the driver and the obstacle ahead. Thus, being able to determine the avoidance action based on the estimated collision of the vehicle and an object. [Oba Page 2, Paragraph 3]
Regarding claim 5, Kobayashi in view of Oba teaches claim 4, accordingly, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporate above.
Kobayashi does not disclose The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 4, wherein, said collision indication value is a collision margin time that is a time length till a time point at which said host vehicle is predicted to collide with said obstacle; and a delay collision determination threshold set as said third collision determination threshold is set to a value smaller than a standard collision determination threshold set as said first collision determination threshold.
However, Oba does teach The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 4, wherein, said collision indication value is a collision margin time that is a time length till a time point at which said host vehicle is predicted to collide with said obstacle; (Oba Page 7, Paragraph 3: “For example, the contact possibility determination unit 130 determines whether or not there is a possibility of contact between the vehicle M and another vehicle based on a contact margin value with another vehicle (preceding vehicle) existing in front of the vehicle M based on the surrounding situation. The contact margin value is an index value indicating a margin, and is, for example, a value set based on the contact margin time TTC (Time To Collision),”) (Oba Page 7, Paragraph 3: “For example, the shorter the time to contact TTC (or the time to headway THW), the smaller the margin (in other words, the longer the time to contact, the greater the margin).”) and a delay collision determination threshold set as said third collision determination threshold is set to a value smaller than a standard collision determination threshold set as said first collision determination threshold. (Oba Page 11, Paragraph 4: “4 is a diagram for explaining the contents of the contact warning control. FIG. 4 shows a scene in which the contact margin time TTC becomes 2 [seconds] without driver operation from the situation shown in FIG. 3 (the state in which the host vehicle M is closer to the other vehicle m1 than when the attention calling control is executed).”) (Oba Page 12, Paragraph 5: “Returning to FIG. 2, at time T5 when the driver operates the steering wheel 82 (detects the driver steering trigger) and performs a steering operation in a direction to avoid the other vehicle m1, the contact avoidance steering control unit 144B performs contact avoidance steering control so as not to further deviate from the adjacent lane (lane L2) adjacent to the driving lane (lane L1) ((4) in FIG. 2). The contact avoidance steering control is an example of the "fourth driving control". The contact avoidance steering control may be performed after the automatic steering avoidance control or after the contact attention warning control.”) (Note: T5 is the third collision threshold) (Note: The closer the vehicle is to the other vehicle the smaller the threshold is in terms of time until collision)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kobayashi to include The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 4, wherein, said collision indication value is a collision margin time that is a time length till a time point at which said host vehicle is predicted to collide with said obstacle; and a delay collision determination threshold set as said third collision determination threshold is set to a value smaller than a standard collision determination threshold set as said first collision determination threshold taught by Oba. This would have been for the benefit to provide a vehicle control device that recognizes the obstacle ahead of the vehicle, the driving state of the driver, and a controller that executes driving control based on the state of the driver and the obstacle ahead. Thus, being able to determine the avoidance action based on the estimated collision of the vehicle and an object. [Oba Page 2, Paragraph 3]
Regarding claim 6, Kobayashi discloses claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporate above.
Kobayashi does not disclose The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, said second control in-execution period first operation start condition is a condition that is satisfied when a collision indication value correlating with a possibility that said host vehicle collides with said obstacle reaches a first collision determination threshold in a case where a second control in-execution period operation determination condition that is satisfied when said driver is operating a driving operation element of said host vehicle is not satisfied, and said second control in-execution period first operation start condition is a condition that is satisfied when said collision indication value reaches a third collision determination threshold in a case where said second control in-execution period operation determination condition is satisfied; and said second control execution period first operation start condition is a condition that is satisfied when said collision indication value reaches said first collision determination threshold in a case where a second control execution period operation determination condition that is satisfied when said driver is operating said driving operation element is not satisfied, and said second control execution period first operation start condition is a condition that is satisfied when said collision indication value reaches said third collision determination threshold in a case where said second control execution period operation determination condition is satisfied; said second control execution period operation determination condition is set to a condition that is satisfied when said driver operates said driving operation element more quickly or more greatly as compared to said second control in-execution period operation determination condition; and said third collision determination threshold is set to a value which said collision indication value reaches after a timing at which said collision indication value reaches said first collision determination threshold.
However, Oba does teach The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, said second control in-execution period first operation start condition is a condition that is satisfied when a collision indication value correlating with a possibility that said host vehicle collides with said obstacle reaches a first collision determination threshold in a case where a second control in-execution period operation determination condition that is satisfied when said driver is operating a driving operation element of said host vehicle is not satisfied, (Oba Page 11, Paragraph 4: “4 is a diagram for explaining the contents of the contact warning control. FIG. 4 shows a scene in which the contact margin time TTC becomes 2 [seconds] without driver operation from the situation shown in FIG. 3 (the state in which the host vehicle M is closer to the other vehicle m1 than when the attention calling control is executed).”)
PNG
media_image1.png
230
421
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and said second control in-execution period first operation start condition is a condition that is satisfied when said collision indication value reaches a third collision determination threshold in a case where said second control in-execution period operation determination condition is satisfied; (Oba Page 12, Paragraph 5: “Returning to FIG. 2, at time T5 when the driver operates the steering wheel 82 (detects the driver steering trigger) and performs a steering operation in a direction to avoid the other vehicle m1, the contact avoidance steering control unit 144B performs contact avoidance steering control so as not to further deviate from the adjacent lane (lane L2) adjacent to the driving lane (lane L1) ((4) in FIG. 2). The contact avoidance steering control is an example of the "fourth driving control". The contact avoidance steering control may be performed after the automatic steering avoidance control or after the contact attention warning control.”) (Note: T5 is the third collision threshold)
PNG
media_image3.png
250
426
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and said second control execution period first operation start condition is a condition that is satisfied when said collision indication value reaches said first collision determination threshold in a case where a second control execution period operation determination condition that is satisfied when said driver is operating said driving operation element is not satisfied, (Oba Page 11, Paragraph 4: “4 is a diagram for explaining the contents of the contact warning control. FIG. 4 shows a scene in which the contact margin time TTC becomes 2 [seconds] without driver operation from the situation shown in FIG. 3 (the state in which the host vehicle M is closer to the other vehicle m1 than when the attention calling control is executed).”)
PNG
media_image1.png
230
421
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and said second control execution period first operation start condition is a condition that is satisfied when said collision indication value reaches said third collision determination threshold in a case where said second control execution period operation determination condition is satisfied; (Oba Page 12, Paragraph 5: “Returning to FIG. 2, at time T5 when the driver operates the steering wheel 82 (detects the driver steering trigger) and performs a steering operation in a direction to avoid the other vehicle m1, the contact avoidance steering control unit 144B performs contact avoidance steering control so as not to further deviate from the adjacent lane (lane L2) adjacent to the driving lane (lane L1) ((4) in FIG. 2). The contact avoidance steering control is an example of the "fourth driving control". The contact avoidance steering control may be performed after the automatic steering avoidance control or after the contact attention warning control.”) (Note: T5 is the third collision threshold)
PNG
media_image3.png
250
426
media_image3.png
Greyscale
said second control execution period operation determination condition is set to a condition that is satisfied when said driver operates said driving operation element more quickly or more greatly as compared to said second control in-execution period operation determination condition; (Oba Page 8, Paragraph 6: “The centering steering control unit 144A may also execute override control to stop the centering steering control, for example, when the driving state detection unit 120 detects a steering operation (operation of the steering wheel 82) by the driver that is equal to or greater than a predetermined value (e.g., a predetermined amount) during centering steering control.”) (Oba Page 9, Paragraph 2: “The contact avoidance steering control unit 144B may also execute override control to stop the contact avoidance steering control when, for example, the driving state detection unit 120 detects a steering operation by the driver that is equal to or greater than a predetermined value (e.g., a predetermined amount) during contact avoidance steering control.”) (Note: The difference is ((the steering operation after centering steering control= second control execution period) occurs quicker which is at an earlier time than (The steering operation after the contact avoidance steering control occurs=second control in-execution period)) and said third collision determination threshold is set to a value which said collision indication value reaches after a timing at which said collision indication value reaches said first collision determination threshold. (Oba Page 11, Paragraph 4: “4 is a diagram for explaining the contents of the contact warning control. FIG. 4 shows a scene in which the contact margin time TTC becomes 2 [seconds] without driver operation from the situation shown in FIG. 3 (the state in which the host vehicle M is closer to the other vehicle m1 than when the attention calling control is executed).”) (Oba Page 12, Paragraph 5: “Returning to FIG. 2, at the time T5 when the driver performs a steering operation in a direction in which the different vehicle m1 is avoided by operating the steering wheel 82 (by detecting a driver steering trigger), the contact avoidance steering controller 144B performs the contact avoidance steering control so as not to further depart from the adjacent lane (lane L2) adjacent to the traveling lane (lane L1) ((4) in FIG. 2).”) (Note: T5 is the third collision threshold) (Note: T5 happens after T3)
PNG
media_image3.png
250
426
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
269
493
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kobayashi to include The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, said second control in-execution period first operation start condition is a condition that is satisfied when a collision indication value correlating with a possibility that said host vehicle collides with said obstacle reaches a first collision determination threshold in a case where a second control in-execution period operation determination condition that is satisfied when said driver is operating a driving operation element of said host vehicle is not satisfied, and said second control in-execution period first operation start condition is a condition that is satisfied when said collision indication value reaches a third collision determination threshold in a case where said second control in-execution period operation determination condition is satisfied; and said second control execution period first operation start condition is a condition that is satisfied when said collision indication value reaches said first collision determination threshold in a case where a second control execution period operation determination condition that is satisfied when said driver is operating said driving operation element is not satisfied, and said second control execution period first operation start condition is a condition that is satisfied when said collision indication value reaches said third collision determination threshold in a case where said second control execution period operation determination condition is satisfied; said second control execution period operation determination condition is set to a condition that is satisfied when said driver operates said driving operation element more quickly or more greatly as compared to said second control in-execution period operation determination condition; and said third collision determination threshold is set to a value which said collision indication value reaches after a timing at which said collision indication value reaches said first collision determination threshold taught by Oba. This would have been for the benefit to provide a vehicle control device that recognizes the obstacle ahead of the vehicle, the driving state of the driver, and a controller that executes driving control based on the state of the driver and the obstacle ahead. Thus, being able to determine the avoidance action based on the estimated collision of the vehicle and an object. [Oba Page 2, Paragraph 3]
Regarding claim 7, Kobayashi in view of Oba teaches claim 6, accordingly, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporate above.
Kobayashi does not teach The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 6, wherein, said collision indication value is a collision margin time that is a time length till a time point at which said host vehicle is predicted to collide with said obstacle; and a delay collision determination threshold set as said third collision determination threshold is set to a value smaller than a standard collision determination threshold set as said first collision determination threshold.
However, Oba does teach The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 6, wherein, said collision indication value is a collision margin time that is a time length till a time point at which said host vehicle is predicted to collide with said obstacle; (Oba Page 7, Paragraph 3: “For example, the contact possibility determination unit 130 determines whether or not there is a possibility of contact between the vehicle M and another vehicle based on a contact margin value with another vehicle (preceding vehicle) existing in front of the vehicle M based on the surrounding situation. The contact margin value is an index value indicating a margin, and is, for example, a value set based on the contact margin time TTC (Time To Collision),”) (Oba Page 7, Paragraph 3: “For example, the shorter the time to contact TTC (or the time to headway THW), the smaller the margin (in other words, the longer the time to contact, the greater the margin).”) and a delay collision determination threshold set as said third collision determination threshold is set to a value smaller than a standard collision determination threshold set as said first collision determination threshold. (Oba Page 11, Paragraph 4: “4 is a diagram for explaining the contents of the contact warning control. FIG. 4 shows a scene in which the contact margin time TTC becomes 2 [seconds] without driver operation from the situation shown in FIG. 3 (the state in which the host vehicle M is closer to the other vehicle m1 than when the attention calling control is executed).”) (Oba Page 12, Paragraph 5: “Returning to FIG. 2, at time T5 when the driver operates the steering wheel 82 (detects the driver steering trigger) and performs a steering operation in a direction to avoid the other vehicle m1, the contact avoidance steering control unit 144B performs contact avoidance steering control so as not to further deviate from the adjacent lane (lane L2) adjacent to the driving lane (lane L1) ((4) in FIG. 2). The contact avoidance steering control is an example of the "fourth driving control". The contact avoidance steering control may be performed after the automatic steering avoidance control or after the contact attention warning control.”) (Note: T5 is the third collision threshold which is closer to the time of collisions until the vehicle hits another vehicle. Since the standard collision threshold is T3= 2seconds is larger than time until collision at T5, thus T5 is smaller than T3) (Note: The closer the vehicle is to the other vehicle the smaller the threshold is in terms of time until collision)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kobayashi to include The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 6, wherein, said collision indication value is a collision margin time that is a time length till a time point at which said host vehicle is predicted to collide with said obstacle; and a delay collision determination threshold set as said third collision determination threshold is set to a value smaller than a standard collision determination threshold set as said first collision determination threshold taught by Oba. This would have been for the benefit to provide a vehicle control device that recognizes the obstacle ahead of the vehicle, the driving state of the driver, and a controller that executes driving control based on the state of the driver and the obstacle ahead. Thus, being able to determine the avoidance action based on the estimated collision of the vehicle and an object. [Oba Page 2, Paragraph 3]
Regarding claim 8, Kobayashi discloses claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporate above.
Kobayashi does not disclose The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, said second control in-execution period first operation start condition is a condition that is satisfied when a collision indication value correlating with a possibility that said host vehicle collides with said obstacle reaches a first collision determination threshold in a case where a second control in-execution period operation determination condition that is satisfied when said driver is operating a driving operation element of said host vehicle is not satisfied, and said second control in-execution period first operation start condition is a condition that is satisfied when said collision indication value reaches a third collision determination threshold in a case where said second control in-execution period operation determination condition is satisfied; and said second control execution period first operation start condition is a condition that is satisfied when said collision indication value reaches said first collision determination threshold in a case where a second control execution period operation determination condition that is satisfied when said driver is operating said driving operation element is not satisfied, and said second control execution period first operation start condition is a condition that is satisfied when said collision indication value reaches fourth collision determination threshold in a case where said second control execution period operation determination condition is satisfied; said second control execution period operation determination condition is a condition which is the same as said second control in-execution period operation determination condition, or is set to a condition that is satisfied when said driver operates said driving operation element more quickly or more greatly as compared to said second control in-execution period operation determination condition; said third collision determination threshold is set to a value which said collision indication value reaches after a timing at which said collision indication value reaches said first collision determination threshold; and said fourth collision determination threshold is set to a value which said collision indication value reaches after a timing at which said collision indication value reaches said first collision determination threshold and before a timing at which said collision indication value reaches said third collision determination threshold.
However, Oba does teach The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, said second control in-execution period first operation start condition is a condition that is satisfied when a collision indication value correlating with a possibility that said host vehicle collides with said obstacle reaches a first collision determination threshold in a case where a second control in-execution period operation determination condition that is satisfied when said driver is operating a driving operation element of said host vehicle is not satisfied, (Oba Page 11, Paragraph 4: “4 is a diagram for explaining the contents of the contact warning control. FIG. 4 shows a scene in which the contact margin time TTC becomes 2 [seconds] without driver operation from the situation shown in FIG. 3 (the state in which the host vehicle M is closer to the other vehicle m1 than when the attention calling control is executed).”)
PNG
media_image1.png
230
421
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and said second control in-execution period first operation start condition is a condition that is satisfied when said collision indication value reaches a third collision determination threshold in a case where said second control in-execution period operation determination condition is satisfied; (Oba Page 12, Paragraph 5: “Returning to FIG. 2, at time T5 when the driver operates the steering wheel 82 (detects the driver steering trigger) and performs a steering operation in a direction to avoid the other vehicle m1, the contact avoidance steering control unit 144B performs contact avoidance steering control so as not to further deviate from the adjacent lane (lane L2) adjacent to the driving lane (lane L1) ((4) in FIG. 2). The contact avoidance steering control is an example of the "fourth driving control". The contact avoidance steering control may be performed after the automatic steering avoidance control or after the contact attention warning control.”) (Note: T5 is the third collision threshold)
PNG
media_image3.png
250
426
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and said second control execution period first operation start condition is a condition that is satisfied when said collision indication value reaches said first collision determination threshold in a case where a second control execution period operation determination condition that is satisfied when said driver is operating said driving operation element is not satisfied, (Oba Page 11, Paragraph 4: “4 is a diagram for explaining the contents of the contact warning control. FIG. 4 shows a scene in which the contact margin time TTC becomes 2 [seconds] without driver operation from the situation shown in FIG. 3 (the state in which the host vehicle M is closer to the other vehicle m1 than when the attention calling control is executed).”)
PNG
media_image1.png
230
421
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and said second control execution period first operation start condition is a condition that is satisfied when said collision indication value reaches fourth collision determination threshold in a case where said second control execution period operation determination condition is satisfied; (Oba Page 12, Paragraph 5: “Returning to FIG. 2, at time T5 when the driver operates the steering wheel 82 (detects the driver steering trigger) and performs a steering operation in a direction to avoid the other vehicle m1, the contact avoidance steering control unit 144B performs contact avoidance steering control so as not to further deviate from the adjacent lane (lane L2) adjacent to the driving lane (lane L1) ((4) in FIG. 2). The contact avoidance steering control is an example of the "fourth driving control". The contact avoidance steering control may be performed after the automatic steering avoidance control or after the contact attention warning control.”) (Note: T5 is the third collision threshold)
PNG
media_image3.png
250
426
media_image3.png
Greyscale
said second control execution period operation determination condition is a condition which is the same as said second control in-execution period operation determination condition, or is set to a condition that is satisfied when said driver operates said driving operation element more quickly or more greatly as compared to said second control in-execution period operation determination condition; (Oba Page 8, Paragraph 6: “The centering steering control unit 144A may also execute override control to stop the centering steering control, for example, when the driving state detection unit 120 detects a steering operation (operation of the steering wheel 82) by the driver that is equal to or greater than a predetermined value (e.g., a predetermined amount) during centering steering control.”) (Oba Page 9, Paragraph 2: “The contact avoidance steering control unit 144B may also execute override control to stop the contact avoidance steering control when, for example, the driving state detection unit 120 detects a steering operation by the driver that is equal to or greater than a predetermined value (e.g., a predetermined amount) during contact avoidance steering control.”) (Note: The difference is ((the steering operation after centering steering control= second control execution period) occurs quicker which is at an earlier time than (The steering operation after the contact avoidance steering control occurs=second control in-execution period)) said third collision determination threshold is set to a value which said collision indication value reaches after a timing at which said collision indication value reaches said first collision determination threshold; (Oba Page 11, Paragraph 4: “4 is a diagram for explaining the contents of the contact warning control. FIG. 4 shows a scene in which the contact margin time TTC becomes 2 [seconds] without driver operation from the situation shown in FIG. 3 (the state in which the host vehicle M is closer to the other vehicle m1 than when the attention calling control is executed).”) (Oba Page 12, Paragraph 5: “Returning to FIG. 2, at the time T5 when the driver performs a steering operation in a direction in which the different vehicle m1 is avoided by operating the steering wheel 82 (by detecting a driver steering trigger), the contact avoidance steering controller 144B performs the contact avoidance steering control so as not to further depart from the adjacent lane (lane L2) adjacent to the traveling lane (lane L1) ((4) in FIG. 2).”) (Note: T5 is the third collision threshold) (Note: T5 happens after T3)
PNG
media_image3.png
250
426
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
269
493
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and said fourth collision determination threshold is set to a value which said collision indication value reaches after a timing at which said collision indication value reaches said first collision determination threshold and before a timing at which said collision indication value reaches said third collision determination threshold. (Oba Page 12, Paragraph 5: “Returning to FIG. 2, at time T5 when the driver operates the steering wheel 82 (detects the driver steering trigger) and performs a steering operation in a direction to avoid the other vehicle m1, the contact avoidance steering control unit 144B performs contact avoidance steering control so as not to further deviate from the adjacent lane (lane L2) adjacent to the driving lane (lane L1) ((4) in FIG. 2). The contact avoidance steering control is an example of the "fourth driving control". The contact avoidance steering control may be performed after the automatic steering avoidance control or after the contact attention warning control.”) (Note: T4 is the fourth collision threshold)
PNG
media_image3.png
250
426
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kobayashi to include The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, said second control in-execution period first operation start condition is a condition that is satisfied when a collision indication value correlating with a possibility that said host vehicle collides with said obstacle reaches a first collision determination threshold in a case where a second control in-execution period operation determination condition that is satisfied when said driver is operating a driving operation element of said host vehicle is not satisfied, and said second control in-execution period first operation start condition is a condition that is satisfied when said collision indication value reaches a third collision determination threshold in a case where said second control in-execution period operation determination condition is satisfied; and said second control execution period first operation start condition is a condition that is satisfied when said collision indication value reaches said first collision determination threshold in a case where a second control execution period operation determination condition that is satisfied when said driver is operating said driving operation element is not satisfied, and said second control execution period first operation start condition is a condition that is satisfied when said collision indication value reaches fourth collision determination threshold in a case where said second control execution period operation determination condition is satisfied; said second control execution period operation determination condition is a condition which is the same as said second control in-execution period operation determination condition, or is set to a condition that is satisfied when said driver operates said driving operation element more quickly or more greatly as compared to said second control in-execution period operation determination condition; said third collision determination threshold is set to a value which said collision indication value reaches after a timing at which said collision indication value reaches said first collision determination threshold; and said fourth collision determination threshold is set to a value which said collision indication value reaches after a timing at which said collision indication value reaches said first collision determination threshold and before a timing at which said collision indication value reaches said third collision determination threshold taught by Oba. This would have been for the benefit to provide a vehicle control device that recognizes the obstacle ahead of the vehicle, the driving state of the driver, and a controller that executes driving control based on the state of the driver and the obstacle ahead. Thus, being able to determine the avoidance action based on the estimated collision of the vehicle and an object. [Oba Page 2, Paragraph 3]
Regarding claim 9, Kobayashi in view of Oba teaches claim 8, accordingly, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporate above.
Kobayashi does not disclose The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 8, wherein, said collision indication value is a collision margin time that is a time length till a time point at which said host vehicle is predicted to collide with said obstacle; a delay collision determination threshold set as said third collision determination threshold is set to a value smaller than a standard collision determination threshold set as said first collision determination threshold; and an intermediate delay collision determination threshold set as said fourth collision determination threshold is set to a value smaller than said standard collision determination threshold and greater than said delay collision determination threshold
However, Oba teaches The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 8, wherein, said collision indication value is a collision margin time that is a time length till a time point at which said host vehicle is predicted to collide with said obstacle; (Oba Page 7, Paragraph 3: “For example, the contact possibility determination unit 130 determines whether or not there is a possibility of contact between the vehicle M and another vehicle based on a contact margin value with another vehicle (preceding vehicle) existing in front of the vehicle M based on the surrounding situation. The contact margin value is an index value indicating a margin, and is, for example, a value set based on the contact margin time TTC (Time To Collision),”) (Oba Page 7, Paragraph 3: “For example, the shorter the time to contact TTC (or the time to headway THW), the smaller the margin (in other words, the longer the time to contact, the greater the margin).”) a delay collision determination threshold set as said third collision determination threshold is set to a value smaller than a standard collision determination threshold set as said first collision determination threshold; (Oba Page 11, Paragraph 4: “4 is a diagram for explaining the contents of the contact warning control. FIG. 4 shows a scene in which the contact margin time TTC becomes 2 [seconds] without driver operation from the situation shown in FIG. 3 (the state in which the host vehicle M is closer to the other vehicle m1 than when the attention calling control is executed).”) (Oba Page 12, Paragraph 5: “Returning to FIG. 2, at time T5 when the driver operates the steering wheel 82 (detects the driver steering trigger) and performs a steering operation in a direction to avoid the other vehicle m1, the contact avoidance steering control unit 144B performs contact avoidance steering control so as not to further deviate from the adjacent lane (lane L2) adjacent to the driving lane (lane L1) ((4) in FIG. 2). The contact avoidance steering control is an example of the "fourth driving control". The contact avoidance steering control may be performed after the automatic steering avoidance control or after the contact attention warning control.”) (Note: The closer the vehicle is to the other vehicle the smaller the threshold is in terms of time until collision) (Note: T3=first collision threshold (standard collision threshold), T4=fourth collision threshold (intermediate delay collision threshold), and T5= third collision threshold (delay collision threshold)) (Note: The Possibility of contact to another car is measured in TTC, in the diagram below T5 is after and smaller than T3.)
PNG
media_image3.png
250
426
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and an intermediate delay collision determination threshold set as said fourth collision determination threshold is set to a value smaller than said standard collision determination threshold and greater than said delay collision determination threshold. (Oba Page 12, Paragraph 5: “Returning to FIG. 2, at time T5 when the driver operates the steering wheel 82 (detects the driver steering trigger) and performs a steering operation in a direction to avoid the other vehicle m1, the contact avoidance steering control unit 144B performs contact avoidance steering control so as not to further deviate from the adjacent lane (lane L2) adjacent to the driving lane (lane L1) ((4) in FIG. 2). The contact avoidance steering control is an example of the "fourth driving control". The contact avoidance steering control may be performed after the automatic steering avoidance control or after the contact attention warning control.”) (Note: T3=first collision threshold (standard collision threshold), T4=fourth collision threshold (intermediate delay collision threshold), and T5= third collision threshold (delay collision threshold)) (Note: The Possibility of contact to another car is measured in TTC, in the diagram below T4 is after and smaller than T3 but before and larger than T5.)
PNG
media_image3.png
250
426
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kobayashi to include The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 8, wherein, said collision indication value is a collision margin time that is a time length till a time point at which said host vehicle is predicted to collide with said obstacle; a delay collision determination threshold set as said third collision determination threshold is set to a value smaller than a standard collision determination threshold set as said first collision determination threshold; and an intermediate delay collision determination threshold set as said fourth collision determination threshold is set to a value smaller than said standard collision determination threshold and greater than said delay collision determination threshold taught by Oba. This would have been for the benefit to provide a vehicle control device that recognizes the obstacle ahead of the vehicle, the driving state of the driver, and a controller that executes driving control based on the state of the driver and the obstacle ahead. Thus, being able to determine the avoidance action based on the estimated collision of the vehicle and an object. [Oba Page 2, Paragraph 3]
Regarding claim 10, Kobayashi discloses claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporate above.
Kobayashi does not disclose The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, said first control system is configured to: in a case where said second control is not being executed, in a state where a collision indication value correlating with a possibility that said host vehicle collides with said obstacle reaches a second control in-execution period collision determination threshold, determine that said second control in-execution period first operation start condition is satisfied to start executing said first operation when a second control in-execution period operation determination condition that is satisfied when said driver is operating a driving operation element of said host vehicle is not satisfied, and not execute said first operation when second control in-execution period operation determination condition is satisfied; and in a case where said second control is being executed, in a state where said collision indication value reaches a second control execution period collision determination threshold, determine that said second control execution period first operation start condition is satisfied to start executing said first operation when a second control execution period operation determination condition that is satisfied when said driver is operating said driving operation element is not satisfied, and not execute said first operation when second control execution period operation determination condition is satisfied; said second control execution period collision determination threshold is set to a value which said collision indication value reaches before said collision indication value reaches said second control in-execution period collision determination threshold, and said second control execution period operation determination condition is set to a condition that is different from said second control in-execution period operation determination condition.
However, Oba does teach The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, said first control system is configured to: in a case where said second control is not being executed, in a state where a collision indication value correlating with a possibility that said host vehicle collides with said obstacle reaches a second control in-execution period collision determination threshold, determine that said second control in-execution period first operation start condition is satisfied to start executing said first operation when a second control in-execution period operation determination condition that is satisfied when said driver is operating a driving operation element of said host vehicle is not satisfied, (Oba Page 11, Paragraph 3: Returning to FIG. 2, when the time to contact TTC (contact allowance value) becomes less than a second predetermined value (second predetermined time) at time T3 when the driver does not alert others around him/her (or performs override control) even after the above-mentioned attention control is performed, and the driver is detected as driving aimlessly, contact attention warning control is performed ((2) in the figure). This contact attention warning control is an example of "second driving control". Time T3 is the time when the time to contact TTC becomes about 2 seconds, for example. In other words, the second predetermined time is shorter than the first predetermined time.”) (Oba Page 11, Paragraph 4: “4 is a diagram for explaining the contents of the contact warning control. FIG. 4 shows a scene in which the contact margin time TTC becomes 2 [seconds] without driver operation from the situation shown in FIG. 3 (the state in which the host vehicle M is closer to the other vehicle m1 than when the attention calling control is executed). In the contact warning control stage, the slow deceleration control unit 142A sets a target deceleration (second target deceleration), generates a target trajectory K2 for executing the slow deceleration control according to the set second target deceleration, and controls the host vehicle M to travel along the generated target trajectory K2.”) and not execute said first operation when second control in-execution period operation determination condition is satisfied; (Oba Page 8, Paragraph 1: “The slow deceleration control is a warning control for encouraging the driver to be careful of approaching another vehicle by the vehicle behavior of deceleration, and is different from the contact avoidance braking control for avoiding contact with the obstacle by braking (however, it may result in avoiding contact with the obstacle).”) (Oba Page 8, Paragraph 2: “In this way, by determining the driver's intention based on the accelerator operation, it is possible to execute a more appropriate override control (switching to manual driving by the driver) for the slow deceleration control.”) and in a case where said second control is being executed, in a state where said collision indication value reaches a second control execution period collision determination threshold, determine that said second control execution period first operation start condition is satisfied to start executing said first operation when a second control execution period operation determination condition that is satisfied when said driver is operating said driving operation element is not satisfied, (Oba Page 9, Paragraph 3: “The driver abnormal stop control is, for example, a control in which, when the driving state detection unit 120 detects that the driver is in a state in which he or she cannot drive, the vehicle M is moved to a predetermined position (for example, a safe position such as a nearby road shoulder) and stopped based on the recognition result by the recognition unit 110.”) (Oba Page 10, Paragraph 4: “In the example of FIG. 3, the control unit 140 performs warning control when the time to contact TTC (contact margin value) based on the relative position and relative speed between the vehicle M and another vehicle m1 becomes less than a first predetermined value (first predetermined time) at time T2 and the driver is detected as being careless.”) (Oba Page 10, Paragraph 6: “In addition, in the attention control, the centering steering control unit 144A performs centering steering control to steer the host vehicle M toward the center of the driving lane (lane L1).”) (Oba Page 14, Paragraph 4: “Driver abnormality stop control is a control (including steering control) that is executed mainly when the driver is absent-minded or even when the driver is unable to drive.”)
PNG
media_image2.png
269
493
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and not execute said first operation when second control execution period operation determination condition is satisfied; (Oba Page 14, Paragraph 6: “In addition, in the driver's operation, when override control is executed by steering operation of the steering wheel 82, the HMI control unit 150 may not change the notification level for the second notification within a predetermined time, regardless of the presence or absence of other driving operations (accelerator operation, brake operation).”) said second control execution period collision determination threshold is set to a value which said collision indication value reaches before said collision indication value reaches said second control in-execution period collision determination threshold, (Oba Page 10, Paragraph 4: “In the example of FIG. 3, the control unit 140 performs warning control when the time to contact TTC (contact margin value) based on the relative position and relative speed between the vehicle M and another vehicle m1 becomes less than a first predetermined value (first predetermined time) at time T2 and the driver is detected as being careless.”) (Oba Page 10, Paragraph 6: “In addition, in the attention control, the centering steering control unit 144A performs centering steering control to steer the host vehicle M toward the center of the driving lane (lane L1).”) (Oba Page 14, Paragraph 4: “Driver abnormality stop control is a control (including steering control) that is executed mainly when the driver is absent-minded or even when the driver is unable to drive.”)
PNG
media_image2.png
269
493
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Oba Page 11, Paragraph 3: Returning to FIG. 2, when the time to contact TTC (contact allowance value) becomes less than a second predetermined value (second predetermined time) at time T3 when the driver does not alert others around him/her (or performs override control) even after the above-mentioned attention control is performed, and the driver is detected as driving aimlessly, contact attention warning control is performed ((2) in the figure). This contact attention warning control is an example of "second driving control". Time T3 is the time when the time to contact TTC becomes about 2 seconds, for example. In other words, the second predetermined time is shorter than the first predetermined time.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
230
421
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and said second control execution period operation determination condition is set to a condition that is different from said second control in-execution period operation determination condition. (Oba Page 8, Paragraph 6: “The centering steering control unit 144A may also execute override control to stop the centering steering control, for example, when the driving state detection unit 120 detects a steering operation (operation of the steering wheel 82) by the driver that is equal to or greater than a predetermined value (e.g., a predetermined amount) during centering steering control.”) (Oba Page 9, Paragraph 2: “The contact avoidance steering control unit 144B may also execute override control to stop the contact avoidance steering control when, for example, the driving state detection unit 120 detects a steering operation by the driver that is equal to or greater than a predetermined value (e.g., a predetermined amount) during contact avoidance steering control.”) (Note: The difference is ((the steering operation after centering steering control= second control execution period) occurs quicker which is at an earlier time than (The steering operation after the contact avoidance steering control occurs=second control in-execution period))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kobayashi to include The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, said first control system is configured to: in a case where said second control is not being executed, in a state where a collision indication value correlating with a possibility that said host vehicle collides with said obstacle reaches a second control in-execution period collision determination threshold, determine that said second control in-execution period first operation start condition is satisfied to start executing said first operation when a second control in-execution period operation determination condition that is satisfied when said driver is operating a driving operation element of said host vehicle is not satisfied, and not execute said first operation when second control in-execution period operation determination condition is satisfied; and in a case where said second control is being executed, in a state where said collision indication value reaches a second control execution period collision determination threshold, determine that said second control execution period first operation start condition is satisfied to start executing said first operation when a second control execution period operation determination condition that is satisfied when said driver is operating said driving operation element is not satisfied, and not execute said first operation when second control execution period operation determination condition is satisfied; said second control execution period collision determination threshold is set to a value which said collision indication value reaches before said collision indication value reaches said second control in-execution period collision determination threshold, and said second control execution period operation determination condition is set to a condition that is different from said second control in-execution period operation determination condition taught by Oba. This would have been for the benefit to provide a vehicle control device that recognizes the obstacle ahead of the vehicle, the driving state of the driver, and a controller that executes driving control based on the state of the driver and the obstacle ahead. Thus, being able to determine the avoidance action based on the estimated collision of the vehicle and an object. [Oba Page 2, Paragraph 3]
Regarding claim 11, Kobayashi in view of Oba teaches claim 10, accordingly, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporate above.
Kobayashi does not teach The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 10, wherein, said second control execution period operation determination condition is set to a condition that is satisfied when said driver operates said driving operation element more quickly or more greatly as compared to said second control in-execution period operation determination condition.
However, Oba does teach The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 10, wherein, said second control execution period operation determination condition is set to a condition that is satisfied when said driver operates said driving operation element more quickly or more greatly as compared to said second control in-execution period operation determination condition. (Oba Page 8, Paragraph 6: “The centering steering control unit 144A may also execute override control to stop the centering steering control, for example, when the driving state detection unit 120 detects a steering operation (operation of the steering wheel 82) by the driver that is equal to or greater than a predetermined value (e.g., a predetermined amount) during centering steering control.”) (Oba Page 9, Paragraph 2: “The contact avoidance steering control unit 144B may also execute override control to stop the contact avoidance steering control when, for example, the driving state detection unit 120 detects a steering operation by the driver that is equal to or greater than a predetermined value (e.g., a predetermined amount) during contact avoidance steering control.”) (Note: The difference is ((the steering operation after centering steering control= second control execution period) occurs quicker which is at an earlier time than (The steering operation after the contact avoidance steering control occurs= second control in-execution period))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kobayashi to include The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 10, wherein, said second control execution period operation determination condition is set to a condition that is satisfied when said driver operates said driving operation element more quickly or more greatly as compared to said second control in-execution period operation determination condition taught by Oba. This would have been for the benefit to provide a vehicle control device that recognizes the obstacle ahead of the vehicle, the driving state of the driver, and a controller that executes driving control based on the state of the driver and the obstacle ahead. Thus, being able to determine the avoidance action based on the estimated collision of the vehicle and an object. [Oba Page 2, Paragraph 3]
Regarding claim 12, Kobayashi in view of Oba teaches claim 10, accordingly, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporate above.
Kobayashi does not teach The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 10, wherein, said second control in-execution period operation determination condition is set to a condition that is satisfied regardless of a traveling direction of said host vehicle by steering operation of the host vehicle when said steering operation is performed; and said second control execution period operation determination condition is set to a condition that is satisfied when said steering operation is performed and said traveling direction of said host vehicle by said steering operation is changed to a direction to avoid the collision between the host vehicle and the obstacle.
However, Oba does teach The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 10, wherein, said second control in-execution period operation determination condition is set to a condition that is satisfied regardless of a traveling direction of said host vehicle by steering operation of the host vehicle when said steering operation is performed; (Oba Page 8, Paragraph 6: “The centering steering control unit 144A may also execute override control to stop the centering steering control, for example, when the driving state detection unit 120 detects a steering operation (operation of the steering wheel 82) by the driver that is equal to or greater than a predetermined value (e.g., a predetermined amount) during centering steering control.”) and said second control execution period operation determination condition is set to a condition that is satisfied when said steering operation is performed and said traveling direction of said host vehicle by said steering operation is changed to a direction to avoid the collision between the host vehicle and the obstacle. (Oba Page 12, Paragraph 5: “Returning to FIG. 2, at time T5 when the driver operates the steering wheel 82 (detects the driver steering trigger) and performs a steering operation in a direction to avoid the other vehicle m1, the contact avoidance steering control unit 144B performs contact avoidance steering control so as not to further deviate from the adjacent lane (lane L2) adjacent to the driving lane (lane L1) ((4) in FIG. 2).”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kobayashi to include The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 10, wherein, said second control in-execution period operation determination condition is set to a condition that is satisfied regardless of a traveling direction of said host vehicle by steering operation of the host vehicle when said steering operation is performed; and said second control execution period operation determination condition is set to a condition that is satisfied when said steering operation is performed and said traveling direction of said host vehicle by said steering operation is changed to a direction to avoid the collision between the host vehicle and the obstacle taught by Oba. This would have been for the benefit to provide a vehicle control device that recognizes the obstacle ahead of the vehicle, the driving state of the driver, and a controller that executes driving control based on the state of the driver and the obstacle ahead. Thus, being able to determine the avoidance action based on the estimated collision of the vehicle and an object. [Oba Page 2, Paragraph 3]
Regarding claim 13, Kobayashi in view of Oba teaches claim 10, accordingly, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporate above.
Kobayashi does not teach The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 10, wherein, said second control in-execution period operation determination condition is set to a condition that is satisfied when at least one of an acceleration pedal of said host vehicle, a brake pedal of said host vehicle, and a steering wheel of said host vehicle is operated; and said second control execution period operation determination condition is set to a condition that is satisfied when a collision avoidance by steering state where a steering operation onto said steering wheel is performed and a traveling direction of said host vehicle by said steering operation is changed to a direction to avoid the collision between the host vehicle and the obstacle is occurring, but that is not satisfied when said collision avoidance by steering state is not occurring even if any one of said acceleration pedal of said host vehicle and said brake pedal of said host vehicle is operated.
However, Oba does teach The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 10, wherein, said second control in-execution period operation determination condition is set to a condition that is satisfied when at least one of an acceleration pedal of said host vehicle, a brake pedal of said host vehicle, and a steering wheel of said host vehicle is operated; (Oba Page 8, Paragraph 4: “The contact avoidance braking control unit 142B may also execute override control to stop contact avoidance control when, for example, the driving state detection unit 120 detects an accelerator operation by the driver of a predetermined value (e.g., a predetermined amount) or more during contact avoidance control.”) and said second control execution period operation determination condition is set to a condition that is satisfied when a collision avoidance by steering state where a steering operation onto said steering wheel is performed and a traveling direction of said host vehicle by said steering operation is changed to a direction to avoid the collision between the host vehicle and the obstacle is occurring, (Oba Page 12, Paragraph 5: “Returning to FIG. 2, at time T5 when the driver operates the steering wheel 82 (detects the driver steering trigger) and performs a steering operation in a direction to avoid the other vehicle m1,”) but that is not satisfied when said collision avoidance by steering state is not occurring even if any one of said acceleration pedal of said host vehicle and said brake pedal of said host vehicle is operated. (Oba Page 15, Paragraph 1: “In this way, by detecting that override control is executed by steering operation for driving control, it is possible to accurately detect that the absentminded driving state has been eliminated (return to normal manual driving). In addition, even if override control is executed by driving operations related to the speed of the vehicle M (accelerator operation, brake operation), it is possible to accurately detect that the absentminded driving state has been eliminated (return to normal manual driving) by adding the fact that the steering wheel 82 is being held to the detection.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kobayashi to include The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 10, wherein, said second control in-execution period operation determination condition is set to a condition that is satisfied when at least one of an acceleration pedal of said host vehicle, a brake pedal of said host vehicle, and a steering wheel of said host vehicle is operated; and said second control execution period operation determination condition is set to a condition that is satisfied when a collision avoidance by steering state where a steering operation onto said steering wheel is performed and a traveling direction of said host vehicle by said steering operation is changed to a direction to avoid the collision between the host vehicle and the obstacle is occurring, but that is not satisfied when said collision avoidance by steering state is not occurring even if any one of said acceleration pedal of said host vehicle and said brake pedal of said host vehicle is operated taught by Oba. This would have been for the benefit to provide a vehicle control device that recognizes the obstacle ahead of the vehicle, the driving state of the driver, and a controller that executes driving control based on the state of the driver and the obstacle ahead. Thus, being able to determine the avoidance action based on the estimated collision of the vehicle and an object. [Oba Page 2, Paragraph 3]
Regarding claim 14, Kobayashi in view of Oba teaches claim 10, accordingly, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporate above.
Kobayashi does not teach The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 10, wherein, said collision indication value is a collision margin time that is a time length till a time point at which said host vehicle is predicted to collide with said obstacle; and said second control execution period collision determination threshold is set to a value greater than said second control in-execution period collision determination threshold.
However, Oba does teach The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 10, wherein, said collision indication value is a collision margin time that is a time length till a time point at which said host vehicle is predicted to collide with said obstacle; (Oba Page 7, Paragraph 3: “For example, the contact possibility determination unit 130 determines whether or not there is a possibility of contact between the vehicle M and another vehicle based on a contact margin value with another vehicle (preceding vehicle) existing in front of the vehicle M based on the surrounding situation. The contact margin value is an index value indicating a margin, and is, for example, a value set based on the contact margin time TTC (Time To Collision),”) (Oba Page 7, Paragraph 3: “For example, the shorter the time to contact TTC (or the time to headway THW), the smaller the margin (in other words, the longer the time to contact, the greater the margin).”) and said second control execution period collision determination threshold is set to a value greater than said second control in-execution period collision determination threshold. (Oba Page 10, Paragraph 4: “In the example of FIG. 3, the control unit 140 performs warning control when the time to contact TTC (contact margin value) based on the relative position and relative speed between the vehicle M and another vehicle m1 becomes less than a first predetermined value (first predetermined time) at time T2 and the driver is detected as being careless.”) (Oba Page 11, Paragraph 3: “Time T3 is the time when the time to contact TTC becomes about 2 seconds, for example. In other words, the second predetermined time is shorter than the first predetermined time.”) (Note: Second control execution period=T2 which is 3-4 sec and second control in-execution period=T3 which is 2 sec)
PNG
media_image2.png
269
493
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
230
421
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kobayashi to include The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 10, wherein, said collision indication value is a collision margin time that is a time length till a time point at which said host vehicle is predicted to collide with said obstacle; and said second control execution period collision determination threshold is set to a value greater than said second control in-execution period collision determination threshold taught by Oba. This would have been for the benefit to provide a vehicle control device that recognizes the obstacle ahead of the vehicle, the driving state of the driver, and a controller that executes driving control based on the state of the driver and the obstacle ahead. Thus, being able to determine the avoidance action based on the estimated collision of the vehicle and an object. [Oba Page 2, Paragraph 3]
Regarding claim 15, Kobayashi in view of Oba teaches claim 11, accordingly, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporate above.
Kobayashi does not teach The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 11, wherein, said collision indication value is a collision margin time that is a time length till a time point at which said host vehicle is predicted to collide with said obstacle; and said second control execution period collision determination threshold is set to a value greater than said second control in-execution period collision determination threshold.
However, Oba does teach The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 11, wherein, said collision indication value is a collision margin time that is a time length till a time point at which said host vehicle is predicted to collide with said obstacle; (Oba Page 7, Paragraph 3: “For example, the contact possibility determination unit 130 determines whether or not there is a possibility of contact between the vehicle M and another vehicle based on a contact margin value with another vehicle (preceding vehicle) existing in front of the vehicle M based on the surrounding situation. The contact margin value is an index value indicating a margin, and is, for example, a value set based on the contact margin time TTC (Time To Collision),”) (Oba Page 7, Paragraph 3: “For example, the shorter the time to contact TTC (or the time to headway THW), the smaller the margin (in other words, the longer the time to contact, the greater the margin).”) and said second control execution period collision determination threshold is set to a value greater than said second control in-execution period collision determination threshold. (Oba Page 10, Paragraph 4: “In the example of FIG. 3, the control unit 140 performs warning control when the time to contact TTC (contact margin value) based on the relative position and relative speed between the vehicle M and another vehicle m1 becomes less than a first predetermined value (first predetermined time) at time T2 and the driver is detected as being careless.”) (Oba Page 11, Paragraph 3: “Time T3 is the time when the time to contact TTC becomes about 2 seconds, for example. In other words, the second predetermined time is shorter than the first predetermined time.”) (Note: Second control execution period=T2 which is 3-4 sec and second control in-execution period=T3 which is 2 sec)
PNG
media_image2.png
269
493
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
230
421
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kobayashi to include The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 11, wherein, said collision indication value is a collision margin time that is a time length till a time point at which said host vehicle is predicted to collide with said obstacle; and said second control execution period collision determination threshold is set to a value greater than said second control in-execution period collision determination threshold taught by Oba. This would have been for the benefit to provide a vehicle control device that recognizes the obstacle ahead of the vehicle, the driving state of the driver, and a controller that executes driving control based on the state of the driver and the obstacle ahead. Thus, being able to determine the avoidance action based on the estimated collision of the vehicle and an object. [Oba Page 2, Paragraph 3]
Regarding claim 16, Kobayashi in view of Oba teaches claim 12, accordingly, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporate above.
Kobayashi does not teach The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 12, wherein, said collision indication value is a collision margin time that is a time length till a time point at which said host vehicle is predicted to collide with said obstacle; and said second control execution period collision determination threshold is set to a value greater than said second control in-execution period collision determination threshold.
However, Oba does teach The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 12, wherein, said collision indication value is a collision margin time that is a time length till a time point at which said host vehicle is predicted to collide with said obstacle; (Oba Page 7, Paragraph 3: “For example, the contact possibility determination unit 130 determines whether or not there is a possibility of contact between the vehicle M and another vehicle based on a contact margin value with another vehicle (preceding vehicle) existing in front of the vehicle M based on the surrounding situation. The contact margin value is an index value indicating a margin, and is, for example, a value set based on the contact margin time TTC (Time To Collision),”) (Oba Page 7, Paragraph 3: “For example, the shorter the time to contact TTC (or the time to headway THW), the smaller the margin (in other words, the longer the time to contact, the greater the margin).”) and said second control execution period collision determination threshold is set to a value greater than said second control in-execution period collision determination threshold. (Oba Page 10, Paragraph 4: “In the example of FIG. 3, the control unit 140 performs warning control when the time to contact TTC (contact margin value) based on the relative position and relative speed between the vehicle M and another vehicle m1 becomes less than a first predetermined value (first predetermined time) at time T2 and the driver is detected as being careless.”) (Oba Page 11, Paragraph 3: “Time T3 is the time when the time to contact TTC becomes about 2 seconds, for example. In other words, the second predetermined time is shorter than the first predetermined time.”) (Note: Second control execution period=T2 which is 3-4 sec and second control in-execution period=T3 which is 2 sec)
PNG
media_image2.png
269
493
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
230
421
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kobayashi to include The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 12, wherein, said collision indication value is a collision margin time that is a time length till a time point at which said host vehicle is predicted to collide with said obstacle; and said second control execution period collision determination threshold is set to a value greater than said second control in-execution period collision determination threshold taught by Oba. This would have been for the benefit to provide a vehicle control device that recognizes the obstacle ahead of the vehicle, the driving state of the driver, and a controller that executes driving control based on the state of the driver and the obstacle ahead. Thus, being able to determine the avoidance action based on the estimated collision of the vehicle and an object. [Oba Page 2, Paragraph 3]
Regarding claim 17, Kobayashi in view of Oba teaches claim 13, accordingly, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporate above.
Kobayashi does not teach The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 13, wherein, said collision indication value is a collision margin time that is a time length till a time point at which said host vehicle is predicted to collide with said obstacle; and said second control execution period collision determination threshold is set to a value greater than said second control in-execution period collision determination threshold.
However, Oba does teach The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 13, wherein, said collision indication value is a collision margin time that is a time length till a time point at which said host vehicle is predicted to collide with said obstacle; (Oba Page 7, Paragraph 3: “For example, the contact possibility determination unit 130 determines whether or not there is a possibility of contact between the vehicle M and another vehicle based on a contact margin value with another vehicle (preceding vehicle) existing in front of the vehicle M based on the surrounding situation. The contact margin value is an index value indicating a margin, and is, for example, a value set based on the contact margin time TTC (Time To Collision),”) (Oba Page 7, Paragraph 3: “For example, the shorter the time to contact TTC (or the time to headway THW), the smaller the margin (in other words, the longer the time to contact, the greater the margin).”) and said second control execution period collision determination threshold is set to a value greater than said second control in-execution period collision determination threshold. (Oba Page 10, Paragraph 4: “In the example of FIG. 3, the control unit 140 performs warning control when the time to contact TTC (contact margin value) based on the relative position and relative speed between the vehicle M and another vehicle m1 becomes less than a first predetermined value (first predetermined time) at time T2 and the driver is detected as being careless.”) (Oba Page 11, Paragraph 3: “Time T3 is the time when the time to contact TTC becomes about 2 seconds, for example. In other words, the second predetermined time is shorter than the first predetermined time.”) (Note: Second control execution period=T2 which is 3-4 sec and second control in-execution period=T3 which is 2 sec)
PNG
media_image2.png
269
493
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
230
421
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kobayashi to include The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 13, wherein, said collision indication value is a collision margin time that is a time length till a time point at which said host vehicle is predicted to collide with said obstacle; and said second control execution period collision determination threshold is set to a value greater than said second control in-execution period collision determination threshold taught by Oba. This would have been for the benefit to provide a vehicle control device that recognizes the obstacle ahead of the vehicle, the driving state of the driver, and a controller that executes driving control based on the state of the driver and the obstacle ahead. Thus, being able to determine the avoidance action based on the estimated collision of the vehicle and an object. [Oba Page 2, Paragraph 3]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN J HARVEY whose telephone number is 571-272-5327. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM-5:00PM M-Th, 8:00AM-4:00PM F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kito Robinson can be reached at 571-270-3921. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.J.H./Junior Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights